The phylogeny of Colocasiomyia (Drosophilidae) is analysed using data for 70 morphological characters, many of which are re‐evaluated from or added to those used previously, for an expanded taxon sample of 24 Colocasiomyia ingroup species. A special focus is put on three species, of which two have remained unresolved for their relationships to other Colocasiomyia species, and the other is a newly discovered species. The analysis results in a single, most parsimonious cladogram, in which a clade comprising the three focal species is recognized along with other clades recovered for the known species groups of Colocasiomyia. Based on this, a new species group—the gigantea group—is established, including Colocasiomyia gigantea (Okada), C. rhaphidophorae Gao & Toda, n.sp. and C. scindapsae Fartyal & Toda, n.sp. These species of the gigantea group breed on inflorescences/infructescences of the subfamily Monsteroideae (Araceae) exceptionally among Colocasiomyia species, most of which use plants of the subfamily Aroideae as their hosts. Colocasiomyia gigantea uses Epipremnum pinnatum (L.) Engler, C. rhaphidophorae uses Rhaphidophora hookeri Schott and C. scindapsae uses Scindapsus coriaceus Engler as their hosts. The host plants of the gigantea group are epiphytes and differ in the structure of spadix and the fruiting process from those of the Aroideae. To understand how the species of the gigantea group adapt to properties of their host plants, their reproductive ecology—most intensively that of C. gigantea—is investigated. The lifecycle of C. gigantea is characterized by its relatively slow embryonic development (taking approximately 6 days), the very long duration of the full‐grown first instar within the egg capsule (approximately three months) until dehiscence of host infructescence, and its relatively fast larval and pupal development (taking approximately 11 or 12 days). Some morphological adaptations and the reproductive strategy in terms of ‘egg size vs. number’ trade‐off are discussed in relation to their reproductive habits and peculiar lifecycles.
How insects evolve resistance or counter-resistance against antagonists is a basic issue in the study of host-parasitoid coevolution. One of the factors that affect their coevolution is fitness costs of resistance and counter-resistance. Here, we assess fitness costs of resistance against the parasitoid Leptopilina victoriae in Drosophila bipectinata on the basis of selection experiments. We made a base population by mixing three geographic fly populations that differed in resistance. After six generations of free mating, the base population was divided into four populations, two for selection of resistance against a L. victoriae population and two for control. Resistance increased rapidly in response to selection and reached a very high level within four generations in the two replicated selected populations, while resistance of the control populations remained low at least for 20 generations. High resistance of the selected populations was maintained at least for 10 generations even if selection was stopped. Comparison of life history and stress tolerance revealed that both selected populations had lower female longevity than the two control populations, and at least one of the selected populations had shorter thorax length and lower female desiccation tolerance and adult heat tolerance than both or either of the control populations. On the other hand, selected populations had higher male starvation tolerance and longevity than control populations.There were no significant differences in resistance against another population of L. victoriae and two other parasitoid species between the selected and control populations.These results suggest that the resistance against the L. victoriae population in D.bipectinata may incur some but not so high costs and act parasitoid-species-and/or parasitoid-population-specifically. 3 Key wordsArtificial selection • coevolution • specificity • trade-offs 4 IntroductionAll insects have immune systems to defend themselves from infection of pathogens or parasites. However, their immune systems are not always effective, because some pathogens and parasites have means to avoid being detected by the host immune systems or suppress host immune responses (Edison et al. 1981;Shelby and Webb 1999; Eleftherianos et al. 2007). To cope with such enemy's adaptations, host insects often intensify their immune responses or modify their immune systems (Strand and Pech 1995; Carton et al. 2008). One of the important factors that affect such parasitoid-host coevolution is the costs of resistance and counter-resistance (Doebeli 1997;Sasaki and Godfray 1999). A powerful tool to examine these costs is the study of correlated responses to artificial selection. Kraaijeveld and Godfray (1997) tabida compared with the control populations (Fellowes et al. 1999). Thus, the resistance mechanism of D. melanogaster has parasitoid-species-or parasitoid-population-specific components.The above selection studies were based on within-population genetic variation.Resistance and counter-resistance aga...
Drosophila bipectinata from Iriomote-jima (IR) is susceptible to the endoparasitoid Leptopilina victoriae from Kota Kinabalu (L. victoriae KK), but D. bipectinata from Kota Kinabalu (KK) and Bogor (BG) is resistant. The cross experiments between the resistant (KK) and susceptible (IR) populations of D. bipectinata suggested that the resistance to this parasitoid is a dominant trait and controlled by a single locus or few linked loci on an autosome. In the AFLP analysis using the IR, KK and BG populations of D. bipectinata and the resistant and susceptible populations derived from a mixed population of these three geographic populations, a DNA fragment almost specific to susceptible flies was detected. It also revealed that genes from the IR population were more frequently maintained in the mixed population compared with those from the KK and BG populations, suggesting that at least a number of genes from the IR population are more advantageous under the laboratory conditions. This explains our previous results that the resistance was lowered in the mixed population although the resistance itself is suggested to incur only low costs; i.e., the resistance gene(s) from the KK and BG populations would have been linked with some genes that are disadvantageous under the laboratory conditions.
Accumulating evidence suggests that genotype of host insects influences the development of koinobiont endoparasitoids. Although there are many potential genetic variations that lead to the internal body environmental variations of host insects, association between the host genotype and the parasitoid development has not been examined in a genome-wide manner. In the present study, we used highly inbred whole genome sequenced strains of Drosophila melanogaster to associate single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs) of host flies with morphological traits of Asobara japonica, a larval-pupal parasitoid wasp that infected those hosts. We quantified the outline shape of the forewings of A. japonica with two major principal components (PC1 and PC2) calculated from Fourier coefficients obtained from elliptic Fourier analysis. We also quantified wing size and estimated wasp survival. We then examined the association between the PC scores, wing size and 1,798,561 SNPs and the association between the estimated wasp survival and 1,790,544 SNPs. As a result, we obtained 22, 24 and 14 SNPs for PC1, PC2 and wing size and four SNPs for the estimated survival with P values smaller than 10. Based on the location of the SNPs, 12, 17, 11 and five protein coding genes were identified as potential candidates for PC1, PC2, wing size and the estimated survival, respectively. Based on the function of the candidate genes, it is suggested that the host genetic variation associated with the cell growth and morphogenesis may influence the wasp's morphogenetic variation.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.